Who is Who in Phylogenetic Networks

Publications related to 'tripartition distance' : The tripartition distance is an extension of the Robinson-Foulds distance for phylogenetic networks. However it does not satisfy the separation property (d(N1,N2)=0 iff N1 and N2 are isomorphic) on general phylogenetic networks.   Order by:   Type | Year

Only And Or     related to:

Associated keywords

distance-between-networks evaluation explicit-network from-rooted-trees hybridization incomplete-lineage-sorting likelihood mu-distance phylogenetic-network phylogeny polynomial Program-Bio-PhyloNetwork Program-PhyloNet reconstruction survey time-consistent-network tree-child-network tripartition-distance triplet-distance

Article (Journal)

1 Gabriel Cardona, Francesc Rosselló and Gabriel Valiente. Tripartitions do not always discriminate phylogenetic networks. In MBIO, Vol. 211(2):356-370, 2008. Keywords: distance between networks, phylogenetic network, phylogeny, Program Bio PhyloNetwork, tree-child network, tripartition distance. Note: http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2376, slides available at http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/webseminars/pg+ws/2007/plg/plgw01/0904/valiente/.         Toggle abstract "Phylogenetic networks are a generalization of phylogenetic trees that allow for the representation of non-treelike evolutionary events, like recombination, hybridization, or lateral gene transfer. In a recent series of papers devoted to the study of reconstructibility of phylogenetic networks, Moret, Nakhleh, Warnow and collaborators introduced the so-called tripartition metric for phylogenetic networks. In this paper we show that, in fact, this tripartition metric does not satisfy the separation axiom of distances (zero distance means isomorphism, or, in a more relaxed version, zero distance means indistinguishability in some specific sense) in any of the subclasses of phylogenetic networks where it is claimed to do so. We also present a subclass of phylogenetic networks whose members can be singled out by means of their sets of tripartitions (or even clusters), and hence where the latter can be used to define a meaningful metric. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved." 2 C. Randal Linder and Loren H. Rieseberg. Reconstructing patterns of reticulate evolution in plants. In American Journal of Botany, Vol. 91(10):1700-1708, 2004. Keywords: distance between networks, hybridization, phylogenetic network, phylogeny, reconstruction, survey, tripartition distance. Note: http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/reprint/91/10/1700.pdf.         3 Bernard M. E. Moret, Luay Nakhleh, Tandy Warnow, C. Randal Linder, Anna Tholse, Anneke Padolina, Jerry Sun and Ruth Timme. Phylogenetic Networks: Modeling, Reconstructibility, and Accuracy. In TCBB, Vol. 1(1):13-23, 2004. Keywords: distance between networks, evaluation, phylogenetic network, phylogeny, time consistent network, tripartition distance. Note: http://www.cs.rice.edu/~nakhleh/Papers/tcbb04.pdf.         4 Cam Thach Nguyen, Nguyen Bao Nguyen and Wing-Kin Sung. Fast Algorithms for computing the Tripartition-based Distance between Phylogenetic Networks. In JCO, Vol. 13(3), 2007. Keywords: distance between networks, phylogenetic network, phylogeny, tripartition distance. Note: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10878-006-9025-5.         Toggle abstract "Consider two phylogenetic networks N and N′ of size n. The tripartition-based distance finds the proportion of tripartitions which are not shared by N and N′. This distance is proposed by Moret et al. (2004) and is a generalization of Robinson-Foulds distance, which is orginally used to compare two phylogenetic trees. This paper gives an O(min {kn log n, n log n + hn} -time algorithm to compute this distance, where h is the number of hybrid nodes in N and N′ while k is the maximum number of hybrid nodes among all biconnected components in N and N′. Note that k ≪ h ≪ n in a phylogenetic network. In addition, we propose algorithms for comparing galled-trees, which are an important, biological meaningful special case of phylogenetic network. We give an O(n)-time algorithm for comparing two galled-trees. We also give an O(n + kh)-time algorithm for comparing a galled-tree with another general network, where h and k are the number of hybrid nodes in the latter network and its biggest biconnected component respectively. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007." 5 Gabriel Cardona, Mercè Llabrés, Francesc Rosselló and Gabriel Valiente. Metrics for phylogenetic networks I: Generalizations of the Robinson-Foulds metric. In TCBB, Vol. 6(1):46-61, 2009. Keywords: distance between networks, explicit network, phylogenetic network, phylogeny, time consistent network, tree-child network, tripartition distance. Note: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TCBB.2008.70.         Toggle abstract "The assessment of phylogenetic network reconstruction methods requires the ability to compare phylogenetic networks. This is the first in a series of papers devoted to the analysis and comparison of metrics for tree-child time consistent phylogenetic networks on the same set of taxa. In this paper, we study three metrics that have already been introduced in the literature: the Robinson-Foulds distance, the tripartitions distance and the $mu$-distance. They generalize to networks the classical Robinson-Foulds or partition distance for phylogenetic trees. We analyze the behavior of these metrics by studying their least and largest values and when they achieve them. As a by-product of this study, we obtain tight bounds on the size of a tree-child time consistent phylogenetic network. © 2006 IEEE."

InProceedings

6 Cam Thach Nguyen, Nguyen Bao Nguyen and Wing-Kin Sung. Fast Algorithms for computing the Tripartition-based Distance between Phylogenetic Networks. In ISAAC05, Pages 402-411, 2005. Keywords: distance between networks, phylogenetic network, phylogeny, tripartition distance. Note: http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/ncthach/Papers/ISAAC2006.pdf.         7 Luay Nakhleh, Jerry Sun, Tandy Warnow, C. Randal Linder, Bernard M. E. Moret and Anna Tholse. Towards the Development of Computational Tools for Evaluating Phylogenetic Network Reconstruction Methods. In PSB03, 2003. Keywords: distance between networks, evaluation, phylogenetic network, phylogeny, polynomial, tripartition distance. Note: http://www.cs.rice.edu/~nakhleh/Papers/psb03.pdf.         8 Gabriel Cardona, Mercè Llabrés, Francesc Rosselló and Gabriel Valiente. Phylogenetic Networks: Justification, Models, Distances and Algorithms. In VI Jornadas de Matemática Discreta y Algorítmica (JMDA'08), 2008. Keywords: distance between networks, mu distance, phylogenetic network, phylogeny, polynomial, survey, time consistent network, tree-child network, tripartition distance, triplet distance. Note: http://bioinfo.uib.es/media/uploaded/jmda2008_submission_61-1.pdf.         9 Yun Yu and Luay Nakhleh. A maximum pseudo-likelihood approach for phylogenetic networks. In RECOMB-CG15, Vol. 16(Suppl 10)(S10):1-10 of BMC Genomics, BioMed Central, 2015. Keywords: explicit network, from rooted trees, hybridization, incomplete lineage sorting, likelihood, phylogenetic network, phylogeny, Program PhyloNet, reconstruction, tripartition distance. Note: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-16-S10-S10.

Misc

10 Bernard M. E. Moret, Luay Nakhleh and Tandy Warnow. An error metric for phylogenetic networks. 2002. Keywords: distance between networks, evaluation, phylogenetic network, phylogeny, tripartition distance. Note: Technical report TR-02-09, http://www.cs.unm.edu/~treport/tr/03-05/nakhleh.ps.gz.